coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  P.L.Z., G.Z. and S.Z. were the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to G.G.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1986, they communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 11 December 1986, which was made enforceable on 23 March 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 8 October 1987, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.
10.  On 8 April 1988, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 28 December 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
12.  On 4 March 1991, the tenant having died in the meantime, she served notice on the latter's cohabiting daughter, requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 28 March 1991, the applicant served notice on her informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 May 1991.
14.  Between 17 May 1991 and 23 May 1995, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On an unspecified date of 1998, the tenant's daughter spontaneously vacated the apartment ant the applicant repossessed the premises.
7.  Mrs G.F. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to L.N.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 April 1983, she communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 12 May 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1984. Upon the tenant's request, the Rome Magistrate postponed the execution of the order for possession to 31 January 1985.
10.  On 4 February 1986, Mrs G.F. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 27 February 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 April 1986.
11.  Between 30 April 1986 and 26 October 1989, the bailiff made sixteen attempts to recover possession.
12.  On 15 November 1989, the applicants became the owners of the apartment.
13.  After four unsuccessful attempts by the bailiff to evict the tenant, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their daughter.
14.  Between 14 November 1990 and 23 October 1998, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession.
15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 26 November 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to E.P.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 June 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 18 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 29 June 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 June 1989.
9.  On 16 May 1989 and again on 1 October 1990 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
10.  On 6 November 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 November 1990.
11.  Between 23 November 1990 and 15 July 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
13.  In July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
11.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1950 and 1938 and live at Irigny, at Colombes and in Paris respectively.
12.  The applicant was arrested on 15 April 1992 and charged by an investigating judge at Mâcon tribunal de grande instance with using a vehicle registration document that had been obtained illegally and handling a stolen vehicle. He was remanded in custody from 16 April to 18 May 1992. On 31 March 1994 he was committed to stand trial before the Mâcon Criminal Court.
13.  In a judgment of 21 October 1994 the Mâcon Criminal Court dismissed the applicant's application to have the proceedings set aside as defective and, finding him guilty, imposed a suspended sentence of eight months' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 French francs (FRF). The applicant appealed.
14.  On 2 February 1995 the Dijon Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Criminal Court in its entirety. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.
15.  By a judgment of 17 January 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.
16.  On 5 November 1994 the applicant was caught by a speed trap while at the wheel of his vehicle. The gendarmerie reported him for exceeding the speed limit by at least 40 k.p.h., namely by driving at 143 k.p.h. in a 90 k.p.h. speed-limit zone.
17.  On 14 March 1995 the Melle Police Court found him guilty of the offence, and imposed a fine of FRF 1,500 and banned him from driving for twenty-one days.
18.  On 15 December 1995 the Poitiers Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, and increased the fine to FRF 3,000 and the ban to three months.
19.  By a judgment of 6 August 1996 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.
20.  On 11 November 1994 the police reported the applicant for two offences of failing to stop at a red traffic light. He was summoned to appear at the Paris Police Court for a hearing on 8 March 1995.
21.  On 12 April 1995 the Paris Police Court found the applicant guilty of the offences. It imposed two fines of FRF 1,800 each and banned him from driving for one month.
22.  On 27 October 1995 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Police Court in its entirety. On 2 November 1995 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. He sought communication of the advocate-general's written submissions in order to be able to reply to them, but to no avail.
23.  By a judgment of 10 July 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to F.C.
8.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  On 29 June 1991, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on the same day, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 2 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
12.  On 23 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 10 December 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
14.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 April 1993.
15.  Between 6 April 1993 and 16 March 1999, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  Pursuant to Law 431/98, the period of enforcement of the order was suspended.
17.  On an unspecified date of June 1999, the tenant vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to G.C.
8.  In a writ of 7 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991, and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. He summoned him to appear before the Turin Magistrate on 29 November 1991.
9.  By a decision of 22 January 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 January 1993.
10.  On 24 December 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
11.  On 13 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 2 February 1993 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 March 1993.
13.  Between 9 March 1993 and 23 July 1998, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On an unspecified day of July 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
9.  Between August 1995 and the applicant’s arrest on 21 January 1996, he was the target of surveillance by the police. Using a “clone” of the applicant’s pager, the police were able to intercept messages sent to him. The pager system used by the applicant and intercepted by the police operated as follows: The sender, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, would telephone the pager bureau in the United Kingdom via the public telephone network. The pager operator would key the message into a computer and read it back to the sender to confirm its accuracy. The computer message was transmitted via the public telephone system to the pager terminal, from where it was relayed by radio to one of four regional base stations and thence, again by radio, simultaneously to the applicant’s and the police’s clone pagers, which displayed the message in text.
10.  The applicant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply a controlled drug. The prosecution alleged that he had been one of the principal organisers of the importation to the United Kingdom from Amsterdam of over 22,000 ecstasy tablets worth approximately GBP 268,000. He was tried, along with a number of alleged co-conspirators, at Bristol Crown Court in September 1997.
11.  Part of the prosecution case against the applicant consisted of the contemporaneous written notes of the pager messages which had been transcribed by the police. The applicant’s counsel submitted that these notes should not be admitted in evidence because the police had not had a warrant under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) for the interception of the pager messages. However, the trial judge ruled that, since the messages had been transmitted via a private system, the 1985 Act did not apply and no warrant had been necessary.
12.  The applicant pleaded not guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
13.  The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence. One of the grounds was the admission in evidence of the pager messages. The Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal on 13 September 1998, upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the messages had been intercepted at the point of transmission on the private radio system, so that the 1985 Act did not apply and the messages were admissible despite having been intercepted without a warrant.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to F.G.
8.  In a registered letter of 18 December 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 28 June 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 October 1986, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 17 December 1986, which was made enforceable on 26 January 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 18 December 1987.
11.  On 23 November 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 12 January 1988 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 February 1988.
13.  Between 12 February 1988 and 27 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-five attempts to recover possession.
14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 4 April 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to R.U.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 September 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 28 October 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 30 May 1989 the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
10.  On 7 July 1989 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 15 September 1989 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 October 1989.
12.  Between 6 October 1989 and 26 June 1998 the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 23 July 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to E.F.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 November 1987, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on 5 January 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 20 May 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
10.  On 7 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 22 June 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 August 1989.
12.  Between 18 August 1989 and 10 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession.
13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
15.  The applicants have not recovered possession of their apartment.
6.  The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Kraków, Poland.
7.  The proceedings in question, which concerned the distribution of an inheritance, began on 10 September 1986. On that date the applicant’s sister-in-law, Z.S.-G. filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the estate left by the applicant’s deceased brother.
8.  Between 10 September 1986 and 11 June 1991 the court held seven hearings (of which two were adjourned) and obtained four expert reports.
9.  On 11 June 1991 the District Court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe). On 14 April 1992 that decision was quashed on appeal by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The case was remitted to the District Court.
10.  In the course of the subsequent proceedings the District Court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports.
11.  On 18 November 1998 the District Court gave its second partial decision, determining the assets which constituted the estate left by the applicant’s brother. It further proceeded to the sharing out of the property in the estate. It that connection, it needed to obtain fresh evidence from experts.
12.  On 28 May 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision. On 26 June 2001 E.D., one of the parties to the proceedings, appealed. The applicant appealed on 28 June 2001. On 6 August 2001 the District Court refused to proceed with her appeal as she had failed to comply with a number of procedural requirements. 
It appears that the proceedings are pending.
7.  Mr E.B. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to F.G.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 July 1986, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 12 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1988.
10.  On 9 March 1990, Mr E.B. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 23 May 1990, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 June 1990.
11.  Between 7 June 1990 and 30 April 1991, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession.
12.  On 14 May 1991, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.
13.  Between 28 May 1991 and 16 November 1994, the bailiff made thirty-three attempts to recover possession.
14.  On 1 December 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
15.  Between 26 January 1995 and 7 May 1997, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 10 May 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
7.  In 1964 the applicant inherited from her father the title over an apartment in Florence; her mother L. inherited a life and controlling interest in that apartment, i.e. the right to use it and derive any benefits therefrom. L. let the apartment to D.D.C. The lease was due to expire on 31 December 1987. In a writ served on the tenant on 9 January 1986, L. communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  On 12 February 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988. That decision was made enforceable on 21 March 1988.
9.  On 5 October 1990, L. served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 14 November 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 November 1990.
10.  Between 21 November 1990 and 19 November 1996, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as L. was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  In the meantime, on 28 February 1991, the applicant in her capacity as the owner of the apartment, made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.
12.  On 28 November 1996 L. died and the applicant acquired the interest in the apartment. She pursued the proceedings in her own name.
13.  Between 17 March 1997 and 22 January 1999, the bailiff made five further attempts to recover possession, which attempts were unsuccessful due to the lack of police assistance.
14.  Under the newly enacted Law 431/1998, the tenant proposed to the applicant that they enter into a new lease. On 1 July 1999, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to repossess the apartment.
15.  On 27 July 1999, the tenant requested the Florence District Court, under Section 6 of Law 431/98, to set a new date for the eviction.
16.  On 27 December 1999, reaching a friendly agreement with the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her apartment.
7.  The applicant claimed restitution of real property which had been expropriated from her in 1967.
8.  On 15 September 1992 the Košice-mesto Land Office (Pozemkový úrad) granted the applicant’s claim. The Land Office established, after an inspection of the land in question, that it had never served the purpose for which it had been expropriated which was a relevant reason for its restitution within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (m) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The educational institution which possessed the land challenged the decision.
9.  On 19 April 1993 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the administrative decision as it considered the reasons for it to be insufficient. The Regional Court instructed the administrative authority to establish all relevant facts of the case and to hear the parties.
10.  On 29 December 1997 both the applicant and a representative of the institution using the land in question met with officials of the Košice 2 District Office (Okresný úrad) to which the case fell to be examined. In the course of the meeting the relevant facts of the case were examined.
11.  On 6 February 1998 the Košice 2 District Office delivered a new decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the plot served the original purpose of its expropriation within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (m) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991 and that the applicant had received compensation for it. The decision was signed by the head of the land, agriculture and forest department of the District Office.
12.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant requested judicial review of this decision. She complained that the Land Office had failed to establish the relevant facts correctly, that it had decided arbitrarily and that there had been no hearing in the case.
13.  On 12 June 1998 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Office’s decision. The court found, with reference to the documents included in the file of the District Office, that the plot in question served the purpose of its expropriation since a social institution used it as a playground for handicapped children. With reference to Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Regional Court decided in camera.
8.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to M.A.H. on 1 March 1987.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 February 1991 the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 15 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 19 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 September 1991.
12.  On 10 July 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 18 November 1991 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 November 1991.
14.  Between 29 November 1991 and 22 January 1999 the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 22 November 1999, the applicant repossessed the premises with the assistance of the police.